Type to search

Goodbye, CGI: A Moral Victory For Bill Clinton — And Many Others

Campaign 2016 Editor's Blog Featured Post Middle East Politics Weekend Reader White House

Goodbye, CGI: A Moral Victory For Bill Clinton — And Many Others

Share
Bill Clinton did not call Obamacare crazy

Late on the afternoon of September 21 — almost exactly eleven years after Bill Clinton inaugurated the annual Clinton Global Initiative conferences in New York City — the former president offered closing remarks there for the very last time. Having watched this innovative organization grow from a casual idea into a formidable entity credited for delivering quality health care, clean water, modern education, disaster relief, and other essential benefits to millions of people around the world, he told its members and supporters gathered in a midtown hotel ballroom that “CGI has worked out better than I ever dreamed.”

It was understandable and probably wise for Clinton to declare victory this year, after profoundly changing the mindset and practice of modern philanthropy. But even as John Lennon’s “Imagine” filled the room, it was impossible to ignore another aspect of CGI’s conclusion — the angry, exaggerated, and almost entirely inaccurate attacks on CGI from political adversaries of Bill and Hillary Clinton, bristling with accusations of “corruption” and favoritism.”

Such shrill assaults were never heard until Hillary Clinton became the favored candidate to succeed Barack Obama in the White House. Over the years since CGI began, in fact, its membership and operations were resolutely non-partisan, with the participation of many Republicans and independents who shared the desire to do some good in the world. Republican businessmen like John Chambers of Cisco Systems joined CGI, provided financial support, and undertook the “commitments to action” that were at the heart of its mission. Republican politicians like John McCain, Mitt Romney, and even Carly Fiorina came to the annual conference and offered high praise for its work.

But that was then — and now, with Hillary Clinton as the historic nominee of the Democratic Party, what Republicans once lauded as a font of good works is denounced as a sewer of venality. While scarcely a word of the criticism is true, that doesn’t matter as much as the opportunity to smear the Clintons for political advantage. The most illuminating example was a widely-publicized press release that falsely depicted a 2005 CGI “commitment” by Bahrain’s crown prince as a bribe to sway the Secretary of State in 2010. Like so many other slanders surrounding the Clintons’ philanthropy, that “exposé” from the right-wing claque called Judicial Watch was a clumsy fraud, yet damaged reputations anyway.

Both Bill and Hillary Clinton are accustomed to such attacks after a quarter-century under the national spotlight. He has occasionally observed that “politics ain’t beanbag.” But the vicious attacks on the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative don’t only injure those two battle-hardened politicians. The collateral damage includes many decent, hardworking people who have toiled for years on foundation and CGI projects, including thousands of volunteers, whose pride in helping humanity has been turned to ashes by this sustained propaganda campaign.

Pouring abuse on people who do hard work to save lives is vile — and as James Carville said recently, “Somebody is going to hell for this.”

If there is a just God, Carville is surely right. While the liars and slanderers contemplate eternal damnation, the rest of the American people — and indeed, people around the world — ought to learn something about what the Clinton Foundation and in particular the Clinton Global Initiative have actually achieved during the past decade or so.

Much of the story is told, from the beginning, in my new book Man of the World: The Further Endeavors of Bill Clinton, in which I try to apportion credit to at least a few of the many people who have worked with him over the years. Two years ago, on CGI’s tenth anniversary, the data-processing giant Palantir released a study of its commitments that reached some startling conclusions — and that report is very much worth reading on the foundation website. That website provides detailed information on many of the individual commitments undertaken by the nonprofits, corporations, trade unions, and universities that have joined with CGI — such as Procter & Gamble’s massive project that has delivered billions of gallons of potable water to families in the developing world.

Not everything tried by CGI members has succeeded, as Clinton and his staff are quick to acknowledge. But as he said at the end, at least they got caught trying to improve the world. They deserve to be thanked and congratulated rather than shamed.

That is much more than anyone can say for their mean-spirited and mendacious critics.

For those with shorter attention spans, this brief video that preceded Clinton’s final CGI address is uplifting and instructive, if frankly promotional  — and showcases a few of the individuals who nobly assisted in that organization’s work.

IMAGE: Former U.S. President Bill Clinton speaks during the Clinton Global Initiative’s annual meeting in New York, September 29, 2015.  REUTERS/Lucas Jackson 

Tags:
Joe Conason

A highly experienced journalist, author and editor, Joe Conason is the editor-in-chief of The National Memo, founded in July 2011. He was formerly the executive editor of the New York Observer, where he wrote a popular political column for many years. His columns are distributed by Creators Syndicate and his reporting and writing have appeared in many publications around the world, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, The New Yorker, The New Republic, The Nation, and Harpers.

Since November 2006, he has served as editor of The Investigative Fund, a nonprofit journalism center, where he has assigned and edited dozens of award-winning articles and broadcasts. He is also the author of two New York Times bestselling books, The Hunting of the President (St. Martins Press, 2000) and Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth (St. Martins Press, 2003).

Currently he is working on a new book about former President Bill Clinton's life and work since leaving the White House in 2001. He is a frequent guest on radio and television, including MSNBC's Morning Joe, and lives in New York City with his wife and two children.

  • 1

83 Comments

  1. Aaron_of_Portsmouth September 23, 2016

    A POX on the GOP and it’s godless minions whose only aim in life is to present as satanic an obstacle to the well-being of humanity, and by extension, to posture and forever toot their horn in order to draw attention to themselves.
    Rarely, is ever, has a former conservative president been accused of doing charitable work on an on-going basis—someone please correct me if I’m wrong on that. Their usual goal is to go into seclusion and live off the wealth they accumulated.

    Reply
    1. Darlenekdavenport1 September 24, 2016

      Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj294d:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      !mj294d:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash294MarketWorldGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj294d:….,…..

      Reply
    2. Dominick Vila September 24, 2016

      Their usual path also includes parachuting, spending the rest of their lives playing golf, or trying to emulate Rembrandt.
      That’s why the hate what Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter have done since they left office.

      Reply
      1. marriea September 24, 2016

        No kidding.
        A ‘I don’t want to do it and I don’t want you to do it neither’, mentality.

        Reply
    3. JPHALL September 24, 2016

      Daddy Bush is the exception. He has spent the last 20 plus years doing good works with both es-presidents Carter and Clinton.

      Reply
  2. dtgraham September 24, 2016

    Look I’m sorry, but there is a far different story about the Clinton Foundation than the one that the Clinton massage therapist, Joe Conason, wants everyone to believe.

    The Clinton Foundation’s finances have been so messy that the United States’s most influential charity watchdog (Charity Navigator) put it on its watch list of problematic nonprofits.

    The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013, but spent just $9 million on direct aid. The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends. That’s far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission.

    Charity Navigator put the foundation on its watch list, which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. “It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout is an organizing director.

    Don’t get me wrong. The Trump Foundation is even worse, and the con-man Donald Trump should get nowhere near the White House, but do you want the truth or not?

    http://amac.us/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-called-a-slush-fund/

    Reply
      1. dtgraham September 24, 2016

        Read this. There is one hell of lot more here than Joe Conason is saying. I took note of Lawrence O’Donnell in the article particularly.

        https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/08/the-clinton-foundations-problems-are-deeper-than

        Reply
    1. stcroixcarp September 24, 2016

      Having worked on some non-profit boards and foundations, I can tell you that there is a difference between grants and pledges and actual cash you have to spend. Some grants are doled out over several years and pledges are often paid out in installments. 140 million in pledges and grants may only be 14 million or less in yearly income over 10 years.

      Reply
      1. dtgraham September 25, 2016

        Maybe so but the Better Business Bureau said that the Clinton Foundation fails on two of its accountability measures for charities: It hasn’t done an effectiveness assessment of its programs and doesn’t have a written policy to do so in the future.

        Supporters argue that it’s a solid charity because 79% of its expenses (88% on Wikipedia) go to program services. What they don’t say is that most of this money pays for salaries, travel expenses and meetings.

        In 2014, for example, the Clinton Foundation spent $12.3 million holding conferences, conventions and meetings and $6 million on travel. More than $25 million went to employees of the foundation in wages and benefits. These three categories alone make up 59% of the program-services expenses.

        In contrast, the foundation spent just over $5 million on grants and aid in 2014.

        Reply
    2. Joan September 24, 2016

      Sources are important.

      Reply
      1. dtgraham September 24, 2016

        I stayed off the right wingnut websites and stuck to the legitimate media. I could have posted several more links. You can read about how problematic the Clinton Foundation is all day.

        http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/22/a-big-slush-fund-for-the-clinton-foundation/

        http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/

        https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/08/the-clinton-foundations-problems-are-deeper-than

        Reply
    3. jmprint September 24, 2016

      That same article says: Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.” But yet, you can log on to Charity Navigator and it shows good rating on the Clinton Foundation. “The Clinton Foundation is a International charity rated 4 of 4 stars by Charity Navigator. Located in New York, NY, it is one of 8360 organizations rated by Charity …

      Reply
      1. dtgraham September 25, 2016

        The Sunlight Foundation, whose stated goal is make government and politics more accountable and transparent, still thinks that the Clinton Foundation is a slush fund for the Clintons.

        Reply
    4. the actual Bajmahal September 24, 2016

      First, per the Washington Post:

      “According to its Web site, Charity Navigator puts charities on the [watch] list whenever a third party identifies issues that potential donors might find interesting. It said it does not assess the merits of those accounts. In the case of the Clinton Foundation, it cited recent media accounts about foreign government donations.”

      which is essentially what Charity Navigator posted when they put the CF on their Watch List. The book, Clinton Cash had come out and the NYT excerpted it in a series of articles and because the NYT was paying attention, others in the media followed suit. So there were a flurry of headlines, negative headlines. And per the algorithms of Charity Navigator, that was enough to put CF on their Watch List. It was neither a judgement nor a confirmation of wrong-doing.

      Also no, just no. http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

      And because they have now changed their data fields to include all the types of work that the CF does, Charity Navigator currently gives the CF their top rating, a four star (out of four star) rating.

      Another reputable watchdog group, Charity Watch, gives and has regularly given the CF an A rating. For perspective, Charity Watch gives the Red Cross a B+.

      Yet another reputable watchdog group, GuideStar, gives and has regularly given the CF a Platinum rating, which is their highest rating.

      The book, Clinton Cash was nothing more than an election year mud ball. Most, it not all, of its insinuations have been disproven. But as a smear, it was somewhat successful — just like the endless Benghazi/email investigations. This has always been the point.

      “Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?” House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Ca) told Sean Hannity. “But we put together a Benghazi Special Committee… a Select Committee… What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping.” http://thedailybanter.com/2015/09/quote-of-the-day-republican-admits-benghazi-scandal-was-orchestrated-to-take-down-hillary/

      Reply
      1. dtgraham September 24, 2016

        After Charity Navigator listed the Clinton Foundation as problematic, they then received favors from the Clinton Global Initiative including a free membership that entitled their officials to rub elbows with world leaders. At that point, suddenly their algorithm changed and they then issued their top rating for the Clinton Foundation.

        That four-star rating had hardly been announced before the Associated Press reported that Charity Navigator was a member of the CGI from 2012 to 2014. The CGI is one of the Clinton Foundation’s best-known programs, as it regularly convenes glittering gatherings of celebrities, government officials and philanthropic stars.

        The $20,000 CGI membership fee was waived for Charity Navigator, which reported it as an in-kind contribution, according to the AP. The news organization said Charity Navigator chairman Michael Thatcher claimed his group joined CGI “to mingle with world leaders and promote its ratings.”

        Think that had anything to do with it?

        Reply
        1. iamproteus September 24, 2016

          I’m sure it means something to someone who is desperately looking for something to hang the Clintons for. But as for credible evidence of wrong-doing it doesn’t mean SQUAT! In fact, it is more credible to believe that the “free membership” achieved its purpose by allowing C.N. to get a better (more close up) view of the operation of CGI, thereby permitting a fairer assessment than one based on numbers alone. After two years of closer scrutiny, it was determined that the prior assessment was unfair and therefore amended.

          Think that could be as plausible as your negative interpretation?

          Reply
          1. dtgraham September 25, 2016

            The prior assessment wasn’t unfair. The Clinton Foundation had such a weird business model for a charitable foundation that they could no longer evaluate them. There were also financial transparency concerns until more tax filings were released.

            Reply
          2. dtgraham September 25, 2016

            I have no interest in hanging the Clintons. They do a good job of hanging themselves needlessly too often.

            Reply
          3. jmprint September 25, 2016

            Too many of the accusations that are out there are lies, conspiracies and distorts. Unless something can be substantiated with actual facts it should be repeated or spread as truth.

            Reply
          4. dtgraham September 25, 2016

            Too many are; agreed. When you’re looking for information, the moment you enter the conservative media it’s just a fever swamp of misinformation, distortions, and outright lies. You have to be careful. Still, the Clintons also don’t help themselves.

            I have my differences and criticisms of Hillary Clinton, but it’s just pure politics and they’re in relative moderation. To the right though, she’s the evil Satanic lizard god and lord of the underworld.

            Reply
        2. the actual Bajmahal September 24, 2016

          Nope, not really. Mainly because Charity Navigator isn’t currently a member of CGI, but was a member of CGI from 2012 through 2014. This, in case you don’t have a calendar handy, is 2016.

          Also, while Charity Navigator was a member of CGI, Charity Navigator downgraded the CF from four stars to three stars — this was in 2012.
          Also, Charity Navigator stopped rating CF entirely in 2014 (because of how the CF was structured no longer fit CN’s rating algorithms). That situation has now changed because those involved took the necessary accounting steps.

          If the Clintons were actually bribing Charity Navigator, then I must say, that is one subtle “long con” bribe.

          Reply
          1. dtgraham September 25, 2016

            Waiving the fee thing was the only information that I got from a conservative website that looked like it had some legitimacy. Typical. As soon as you’re in the conservative media, the misinformation starts. That looked damning, but it would have been helpful to know that fees are waived for similar organizations too.

            The problem with these evaluators is that they’re asking only the minimal, base, type questions. The Foundation is not spending nearly as much money on actual charity as they claim, and their Wikipedia page says. The Foundation has spent increasing portions of its budget on salaries over the years, and decreasing portions on the distribution of low-cost pharmaceuticals for example. They may be spending x on program services to satisfy the charity evaluator, but they’re not saying how much of that is eaten up in salaries, travel, etc… They’re not asking what the Foundation’s programming actually does and what has the organization gotten for it’s money? Exactly what has it accomplished? There is a tremendous lack of transparency there, and the Foundation has been silent on this whenever asked. They’re also not asking how arm’s length their donors are, and do they have favoured access?

            We now know through Wikileaks that it was hard to know where the state department and the Clinton Foundation both started and ended. They were mixed from 2009-2013. Want one example? There were 148 phone messages from a Foundation senior executive to Hillary’s top aide from 2010-2012. That was more than any other caller.

            Their practices are open to question too. It seems a little odd that your charitable stated mission is to help corporations profit from the developing world. An example: working with credit card companies to expand the volume of low-cost loans offered to poor inner city residents. Typically, enticing poor people into taking on large amounts of credit card debt is not among the activities of a charitable foundation.

            They also receive a lot of money from human rights violators around the world. Who believes that Saudi Arabia donated so much to the Foundation because the Saudis felt a real commitment to one of the Foundation’s stated goals of empowering women and improving LGBT rights? They wanted favours and access.

            As to favours and access, the trend in donations to the foundation also raise suspicions, since they appear to rise and fall along with Hillary Clinton’s status. Tax filings show that donations dropped sharply in 2012 — Clinton’s last year at the State Dept — totaling less than $50 million. In contrast, the Foundation got more than $126 million in her first year at State.

            And as the 2016 election has drawn closer, donations once again ramped up, topping $172 million in 2014 — the last year for which data are available. The foundation also raked in nearly $4 million in speech revenue in 2014. It made less than half that in 2012.

            It’s not reasonable to think that all of these things are mere coincidences. She may enter the White House owing favours to dictators.

            At any rate, while the Foundation does some good in the world, there are still serious legitimate questions to be asked about the CGI and the Foundation (more the Foundation) nevertheless, and this website will not ask any of them. Certainly not Joe Conason. Yet he and his writers felt the need to tear Bernie Sanders apart all during the primaries, day after day. Hypocrisy, thy name is Conason.

            Reply
    5. EvenstarMtl September 24, 2016

      Donald Trump was the sole financial contributor to the Trump Foundation for 20 years….it was ALL his own money! Wake up!

      Reply
      1. jmprint September 24, 2016

        That’s a lie, wikipedia proves your statement incorrect.

        Reply
      2. dtgraham September 25, 2016

        He used other people’s money to fake philanthropy. He hasn’t put in a dime since 2008.

        Reply
    6. PrecipitousDrop September 24, 2016

      The Charity Navigator’s poor report was retracted FIVE DAYS after it was originally posted. This watchdog’s highest rating for the Clinton Foundation was restored, and has remained unchanged to this day. Charity Navigator used incorrect financial models to reach the erroneously downgraded assessment. The New York Times and Washington Post reported the correction, the retraction, and the explanations for it, but the links to these old articles are just as dead as your link to Charity Navigator.
      It’s old news.
      It has been corrected.
      Period.

      Reply
  3. Dominick Vila September 24, 2016

    On a positive note, the sickening attacks against the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative exposed the callousness and lack of morality of the Republican party to every person capable of rational thinking, in and outside the United States.
    Going after charitable institutions respected for their deeds worldwide, exposes not only the partisanship and the willingness to go to extremes seldom attempted by responsible political parties, but the lack of humanity and morality of the detractors of these institutions.
    As opposed to the private Trump Foundation, the revenues and outlays of the CGI and Clinton Foundation are available for public scrutiny. As opposed to frequent audits and fines against evidence of bribe and fraud by the Trump Foundation, the Clinton charities enjoy the respect of the entire world, and are being attacked because a foreign leader committed a substantial amount of money to improve education in his country, at the behest of the CGI, and had dinner with Hillary in 2005…four years before she became SoS!
    How do they explain donating $25,000 to Pam Bondi, the Florida Attorney General, who dropped her plans to investigate Trump U four days after getting the loot, and how do they react to the IRS fining Trump $2,500 for not reporting that “donation” in their tax return? It was all a clerical error, no biggie. How do they explain Trump using Foundation donations to buy a portrait of himself, to pay debt, and to cover personal expenses? Silence!
    Sadly, as it happens so often, the ones that will lose the most as a result of the vicious attacks against the Clinton Foundation and the CGI, are those who have benefited from their altruism.

    Reply
    1. AgLander September 24, 2016

      Smarmy Fawning Alert!!

      Reply
      1. iamproteus September 24, 2016

        Please explain the meaning of that phrase, Ag. Every word of Dom’s post is true and accurate, so I don’t think you could have meant anything negative by it. I’d just like to know exactly what it means so I can use it properly. Thanks!

        Reply
    2. Kevin Johnson September 24, 2016

      A thoughtful and eloquent post as always DV.
      But here is one issue that we all need to face; the right do not want to see facts. There is no proof that will dissuade them from their ideological, hyper-partisan fantasy. I would invite all to watch footage of the crowds at Hitler’s speeches. Notice the vacant looks of mindless rapture as they cheer. That is (I believe) what we are up against now in this country. There will be no convincing. The facts are there and irrefutable for those who will see, but those firmly in the right camp will not see. Therefore it is imperative that EVERYONE who does see the facts VOTES. There can be no sitting on the sidelines, no “I’m only one tiny vote” apathy this election. The consequences are far too great: President Donald Trump.

      Reply
      1. Joan September 24, 2016

        It is not merely the ” right”, the tide has been so relentless that it has eroded even liberals and progressive’s support of HRC, the enthusiasm gap. Many will vote for her, because the alternatives are unthinkable, even while thinking that she really is a crook. I challenged one such person who thinks that her being able to hid her crookedness from the relentless investigations and the army of dirt diggers was just proof of Hillary being a smart crook. She is going to vote for Hillary because she thinks that Hillary will wield that smart crookedness ” for us”, so there is that, I guess.

        Reply
        1. ps0rjl September 24, 2016

          I am amazed at how much slander is put at Hillary’s feet and yet through all the partisan investigations at taxpayers’ expense, there is never so much as a finding of any criminal action. Yet here we have the Donald bilking people out of thousands of dollars to join Trump U. which is a nothing more than a scam, Donald using money from the Trump Foundation to settle personal liabilities, and his slimy business practices that have left thousands of employees and contractors holding the bag for his bankruptcies, and yet hardly a word has been said about his actions.

          Reply
          1. marriea September 25, 2016

            There is a reason Trump targeted mostly whites, (uneducated as he put it) because he knows those people are more apt to blame other for their problems and they, nationwide, represent the majority.

            Reply
        2. idamag September 26, 2016

          The right was very careful and shrewd in trying to label Hillary as crooked. Notice trump always says “crooked Hillary.”

          Reply
      2. marriea September 24, 2016

        As my daughter pointed out, the followers of Donald Trump and his defenders are reflection of the mindset of Americans these days.
        But alas, it is also a reflection of the ways of mankind in general.

        Reply
        1. Dominick Vila September 24, 2016

          There is, indeed, a rebellion against the status quo, the norms of conduct we have used for decades, social programs, diplomacy Vs war, and very surprisingly for the party of big business, attacks against Wall Street. Seeing the GOP attack capitalism is the last thing I would have expected. In fairness, they are also attacking socialism, and everything related to the past. Sometimes it almost seem as if they are championing anarchy. They just don’t know it yet.

          Reply
          1. marriea September 25, 2016

            of course you’re correct.
            There is a reason for that old adage about ‘not be able to see the forrest for the trees’.
            As it relates to Donald Trump, he is suggesting what he can/will do for people, and because they have their heads firmly planted inside his wallet and their desire to ‘be wealthy?’ like him, they believe that he is their salvation to materialism that commericalism has put in front of their faces.
            They are willing to give him a huge pass in spite of the bundles of evidence showing him to be just as it has been pointed out tho them.
            On top of that, the other folks are pissed that they can’t seemingly get by just because the super rich have found a way to get what they want out of the system and so they feel cheated.
            From my perspective, there is a way to change that pattern that is so simple as to be too easy.
            V-O-T-E!!!!
            Once the elites in our local, state and national elections find that folks will go and vote in droves, they will adjust their way of doing business.
            There is a reason why officials keep tabs on voting habits and the precincts involved. They know which area is inclined to vote and which don’t bother.
            They are in effect saying that if you don’t bother to participate in the game, then you have no say in how the game is played and that if you don’t watch me, I will cheat you.
            The people have the power to change things, but they won’t use that powerful weapon. (sigh).

            Reply
          2. PrecipitousDrop September 25, 2016

            It’s a red-faced Shame that Democratic voters only visit the polls once every four years. We must learn to vote whenever the polls are opened — just like Republicans do.

            Reply
          3. marriea September 25, 2016

            I won’t argue with that accessment.
            Sadly, DEMS and GOP voter do also, have an unrealistic view of the workings of politics.
            Just because someone says that I ‘promise’ to do this or that, doesn’t actually mean”NOW”, but that they will propose to put something into operation.
            Perhaps School House Rock would help them understand a little bit about how a bill becomes law.
            Or better yet, just go an pick up a civic books and actually read the thing.

            Reply
      3. Dominick Vila September 24, 2016

        I agree. Unfortunately a lot of people form opinions, and make decisions, based on superficial things, such as glamor, showmanship, and other things that have nothing to do with qualifications, relevant experience, or the temperament and judgment needed to be a good leader.
        What scares the most about a Trump presidency, in addition to his over reactions and immaturity, is the potential long term impact on the Supreme Court. The effects of a major shift to the far right will be felt for at least a generation.
        Democrats have to find a way to energize our base to ensure everyone votes.

        Reply
      4. VirtualPapy September 24, 2016

        Word.

        Reply
      5. EvenstarMtl September 24, 2016

        “I would invite all to watch footage of the crowds at Hitler’s speeches.
        Notice the vacant looks of mindless rapture as they cheer.”
        Ya, I remember that look when Obama ran in 2008 on nothing but “Hope and Change” and a very short list of accomplishments.
        At least Trump has a track record of many many successes, is a problem solver and a doer and that is what Americans acknowledging.
        Remember, Obama had no experience compared to Trump but it seems Americans are not allowed to point this out about Obama….

        Reply
        1. iamproteus September 24, 2016

          Are you really suggesting that Hillary has no track record of success as FLOTUS, Senator and S.O.S, over the last 20 odd years?
          And about Trumps’ “many, many successes”. Has Hillary been bankrupt multiple times? Has she been charged, convicted and fined multiple times? Has she dumped two marriages after cheating on both of them? Has she repeatedly stiffed contractors and employees after they completed their end of the bargain? Have you no honor, no credibility? How can you look your children in the eye and tell them that honesty is the best policy?

          Reply
  4. AgLander September 24, 2016

    “Moral victory for Bill Clinton” is a non sequitur because it is an unwritten rule that the word “moral” and “Bill Clinton” should never be used together in the same sentence. It causes to much laughter.

    Reply
    1. marriea September 24, 2016

      And what, pray tell, have you done lately?

      Reply
      1. iamproteus September 24, 2016

        It looks like Ag isn’t going to answer you so I will take it upon myself to answer as he would if a moment of honesty were to overcome him (I know…fat chance!): “What have I done lately? I HAVE LIED! LIED, I TELL YA! LIED! LIED!”

        Reply
        1. idamag September 26, 2016

          How else is he going to keep his membership in the teapublican hate party?

          Reply
      2. Aaron_of_Portsmouth September 24, 2016

        He’s done nothing but act in knee-jerk mode. Aggie has “Clinton-envy” and it gnaws at him daily, like a bad “Jones”.

        Reply
    2. ps0rjl September 24, 2016

      With your comments I am reminded of some lyrics of a song about hypocrisy and morals. It concerns a man telling his mistress that if he sees her on the street don’t be offended if he doesn’t acknowledge her. It goes like this, ” If I should see you one the street some day, pardon me if I turn away. It’s not that I am ashamed about you and me. But I have to consider my morality.”

      Reply
    3. Aaron_of_Portsmouth September 24, 2016

      Everything you write is a non sequitur, Agatha. You are a constant source of laughter—still trying to find your identity.

      Reply
      1. idamag September 26, 2016

        Funny how trump’s many affairs are just poo-pooed. He was sleeping with Marla Maples, while married to Ivana. He was sleeping with Melania, while married to Marla. And the potential first lady’s bare bottom is all over the internet. Clips from her modeling days. One from Hustle Magazine and one is the pose she did for the NRA. That stuff is out there. Trump stiffed those who built his casinos and hotels. And…they call Bill Clinton immoral.

        Reply
  5. Jon September 24, 2016

    Just another sickening example of the right wing attempts to destroy anything that aids the underprivileged and less fortunate. Yet not a sound about Trump Foundation’s blatant misuse of funds which benefited only Trump financially as well as making it appear as if Trump was charitable when he was nothing but a fraud using as he says, OPM, other people’s money. Sick. Sad.

    Reply
    1. EvenstarMtl September 24, 2016

      Donald Trump was the only financial contributor of the Trump Foundation for 20 years…what, is he misusing his own money????

      Reply
      1. PrecipitousDrop September 24, 2016

        What charitable contributions did Trump Foundation make in those 20 years, EM?
        How much did he contribute?
        Please refer to the laws concerning charitable trusts. Once the contribution to the fund is made, those dollars cannot be used for personal gain.

        Reply
      2. jmprint September 24, 2016

        Post the ledger or link, prove your statement, your word is not enough.

        Reply
      3. Jon September 24, 2016

        Trump’s last significant contribution was in 1989. He has pressured businessmen and associates to donate to his foundation. There is no proof that the only money in the Trump Foundation was only that Trump donated to his foundation. At best it was always a mixture of his funds and those of other donors to the Trump Foundation. He hasn’t contributed any money to his Foundation in at least a decade and in many of the years after 1989, he contributed $0.00 while strong arming those who did business with him to donate to the Trump Foundation. At best, prior to 1990, he used some of his money along with some of the money of donors.
        Even if your lie was true, it is illegal to use Trump Foundation funds to bribe attorneys general and pay business expenses. You are simply lying.

        Reply
      4. marriea September 25, 2016

        WHAT??!!
        Trump has been using other people’s money from the begainning.

        Reply
      5. Thoughtopsy September 25, 2016

        Erm… try facts.
        Your point? Not one.

        Reply
  6. tbs September 24, 2016

    Sickening article as it is a sham!
    They are NOT welcomed in Haiti and some parts of Africa.
    Trump has in no way done anything illegally as the Clintons have done!
    But you liberals keep twisting things and lying to yourselves as being self-righteous to feel good. Keep living in that fairy tale world of make believe, you live in.
    Wonder, if Hillary loses, how the foreign money, given to them, will react about the promises she will not be able to fulfill will fall back on her> Hmm be interesting to observe.

    Reply
    1. Girlpower September 24, 2016

      If trump has not done anything wrong then why are there over 1300 lawsuits against him right now? One of rape against a 13 year old girl ! How morale was it when his nephews baby son died because trump stopped providing his brothers family with health care as soon as he took over the family estate when Donald Sr passed. This one fact alone is all anyone needs to judge trumps greed and soulless heart!

      Reply
      1. idamag September 26, 2016

        How do all the contractors feel about the four lawsuits?

        Reply
    2. jmprint September 24, 2016

      Yes it will be interesting so vote for Hillary 2016.

      Reply
    3. iamproteus September 24, 2016

      tbs, are you familiar with the psychiatric term: projection? If not, do look it up. You might get a little different perspective on the right wing (including your own) psychological status.

      Reply
    4. Thoughtopsy September 25, 2016

      You appear to have failed to understand even the most basic facts about the Clinton Foundation, CGI or Trump.

      Here’s something that may help:
      http://www.gq.com/story/176-reasons-donald-trump-shouldnt-be-president-olbermann
      This well written GQ article explains exactly who Trump is. You cannot read it, and it’s many links, facts and evidence, and still say stupid things like “Trump has in no way done anything illegally…”
      Try it.
      You’ll like it. I promise.

      You might also like to post actual facts, links and evidence yourself next time. Otherwise you look like you don’t understand how argument works.

      Reply
      1. idamag September 26, 2016

        I just finished a book about Trump, written by one of his executives, Jack McConnell. Trump is who tablespoon is.

        Reply
  7. Dave Mather September 24, 2016

    This is one of the most bias and inaccurate articles I have ever read! And you call that journalism???????

    Reply
    1. zorro037 September 24, 2016

      You called biased because this report say the true and those trumpist hate the meaning of that word. Trump and his confederates only believe en reiterated and repeated lies, the same way Goebel did back in the 30s and 40s in the nazi German. But you’re in for great frustration, just allow some time to develop every thing that is coming Trump’s way. You gonna see it.

      Reply
    2. iamproteus September 24, 2016

      I can’t help wondering whether you spent any time verifying the veracity of this article or simply saw it as an affront to your preconceived ideology.

      Reply
      1. idamag September 26, 2016

        The latter. That is who they are.

        Reply
    3. Thoughtopsy September 25, 2016

      If you don’t have either facts or links to facts I’m uninterested in your profoundly uninformed opinion.

      Reply
  8. vdpphd September 25, 2016

    There is one thing you can be sure of: if a story is only found on the blog-o-sphere, it is not true. From space aliens to herbal remedies to conspiracy theories, the false stories do not actually make it into the refereed press where libelers can be sued. The reason the main stream is less colorful is that is has to be more careful with the provable facts. Freedom of the press only guarantees the right to publish, and only to the publisher. Malicious publication can be punished, at least civilly Not so on the Internet, where, as the cartoon in the operations room went, “nobody knows that you are a dog.”

    You cannot trsut television to give you the whole truth and nothing but the truth either. The camera has only one eye so the visuals are misleading. Each story is allocated only so many minutes, not enough time for explanations. No significant issue can be properly explained in less that an academic 50 minute hour – with one third of that time devoted to questions about what is said during the rest of the time.

    Journalists are taught to ask questions. In fact, journalism today is entirely about questions and is hardly at all about answers. Many of the interlocutors are insufficiently educated to recognize and respond to dishonest answers. Read the list, let the talking head deliver his talking points, say thank you. That is not interviewing – the idea is to get past the scripted message to the underlying realities of the candidate. There is however, actually no end to questions. The public craves the lurid, and that is what television gives – a one eyed view of events and a fascination with the trivial.

    The problem is that the system of government is designed so that you have to be for something, not just against everything the opposing party proposes. The body politic has real issues that real government must actually deal with, one way or another. We do not control events but we require our government to respond to them as if they did. In the absence of affirmative votes, no taxes are collected, no checks are written, and no government services are provided. The Constitution divides the government into horizontal and vertical pieces, and the result is not a hierarchy. Most issues are in fact local, and are under local jurisdiction, with no Constitutional authority given to the Congress or the President to resolve them. Some issues are federal, solely, and States are denied authority over them. The economy is under control of the Congress, foreign policy and war-fighting mostly under the President, and justice mostly under an independent judiciary. Few federal powers can be exercised without cooperation between Houses of Congress and the President. “no” is not the way ot works. “Let’s make a deal” is the underlying premise.

    Unfortunately, cooperation does not make for lurid video. You have to demagogue the base to win elections,l but you have to deal with the others afterward when you must govern. The system is set up in such a way that having one party in power in both houses of Congress and the Presidency has only happened six times out of more than 100 federal elections.

    Demonizing the adversary makes for real lurid coverage. It makes for exciting campaigns. It does not make for effective government.

    Reply
  9. Thoughtopsy September 25, 2016

    It amuses me how the party of Christianity (which is often how they present themselves) can be so callous and cruel to certain groups of people.

    – It shows in their attitude to Poor people. “Lazy takers”, “Should have worked harder”
    – It shows in their attitude to Social support Programs. “Cut them… it teaches dependence”.
    – It shows in their worship of wealth and money. “Tax cuts for the wealthy”,”The Prosperity Gospel”, “Corporate Handouts”
    – It shows in their demonization and blame for the “Other”… people not like them (i.e. Not White). “Mexicans are Rapists”, “Black on black crime”, “Immigrants are terrorists”, “Immigrants are stealing your jobs”, “Blue lives matter”, “Immigrants commit more crime”

    My understanding of the New Testament and the Christian religion in general gives me the strong sense that Jesus (were he real and actually watching) would be utterly horrified at the lack of compassion and casual abuse of those most in need.

    Those points above and the beliefs and attitudes behind them are not Christian.
    Not even close.

    That’s why I laugh whenever I see a Republican who holds one or more of those views, and at the same time claims to be a “Christian”.

    This attack on the Clintons, with CGI as collateral damage, is cruel, callous, calculated, and shows no care for the millions who will die due to the vacuum left by CGI and the resulting lack of help in desperate places around the world.

    Reply
    1. jmprint September 25, 2016

      A good example is Cruz. He pretends to be a christian and is backing Trump, after he himself said Trump was evil. It amazes me how they will stand with an evil man, but won’t stand with Obama an honorable man. Republicans are putting their political party before our great nation and that breaks their ethics and legions.

      Reply
      1. PrecipitousDrop September 26, 2016

        Well, Obama just CAN’T be a good Christian. He’s Black, y’see…

        Reply
      2. idamag September 26, 2016

        If Jesus came to them, and there is a possibility they would deny him right off, and Jesus said, “You cannot have me and your political party. You must choose.” They would choose their party.

        Reply
    2. idamag September 26, 2016

      I have always said of so-called Christians, if they are an example of Christians, I don’t want to be one.

      Reply
  10. idamag September 26, 2016

    Charity Navigator: We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity’s atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.

    What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?

    It simply means that the organization doesn’t meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.

    Reply
  11. idamag September 26, 2016

    % o% Just went to Fact Check. Carly Fiorina said that the Clinton Foundation only spent 6% on charity. Fact: They spend 89 % on charity. They are listed as an operating charity as opposed to one that collects money for grants. Their staff in Africa are training farmers to help them get seeds, equipment and marketing of their crops. Did they accept donations from foreign donors? Yes, and why not. They are helping people worldwide.

    Reply
  12. dpaano October 6, 2016

    It’s unfortunate that the GOP will stoop to the lowest levels of hell to smear the Clintons! And, for those who previously said that the CGI was wonderful and participated in it to now turn their backs on it (yes, you, Carly) is truly the lowest of the low! And, what’s REALLY pitiful is that our media has put forth little or NO information about what the CGI has done and what is being done to them by the GOP!!! If more people were made aware of the good deeds of this group….they might not think so lowly of the Clintons!!!

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.